Lesley Stahl’s segment on 60 Minutes last Sunday entitled the “Cleantech Crash” has been the subject of much commentary. The segment largely reiterates the popular storyline that the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) wasted billions of dollars on worthless Cleantech investments, which the Chinese are now buying for a song.

Critics have called the segment a "hit job," a "debacle," an "about face" and even "Dumb & Dumber Part 3." What immediately comes to my mind, however, is the old Woody Allen line about the food being bad and there not being enough of it. The idea that the DOE invested in something worthless and that the Chinese are now stealing it from us does not stand up to logic.

But while I agree with the critics, that 60 Minutes got it wrong last Sunday, it is important to understand exactly what it got wrong. 60 Minutes did not get the facts wrong. Nor did it unfairly cite those facts selectively. What 60 Minutes got wrong was that it asked the wrong question.

In advanced battery technology, the bulk of the DOE’s Stimulus Package investments, about which 60 Minutes complained, came through the Electric Drive Vehicle Battery and Component Manufacturing Initiative (FOA-26). In all, more than $2 billion was invested in electric battery production and supply facilities spread among 30 corporate grantees. Among those grantees, as noted by 60 Minutes, were companies such as A123 Systems and EnerDel, which subsequently went bankrupt.

Indeed, the whole focus of the 60 Minutes segment was on the Cleantech companies that have failed. At one point, Lesley Stahl dramatically reads a list of failed Cleantech companies to Vinod Khosla before exclaiming “Pfff…I’m exhausted.”

The point Ms. Stahl missed is that it is irrelevant whether the companies that received DOE money succeeded or failed. The DOE never invested in companies. It never purchased a single share of stock. It is true that many private investors lost money in companies that received DOE awards. Those investors made bets on A123, EnerDel and other Cleantech companies. Had those bets worked out, the investors would have profited handsomely. Unfortunately they failed. Too bad. Tough luck. Or, as Pin Ni of Wanxiang put it in the 60 Minutes program, “That’s capitalism.”

What the DOE invested in was technology. The goal of the FOA-26 grants was to improve the technology and reduce the costs of advanced batteries so that they might one day reduce the use of petroleum-based fuels in transportation. Which investors ended up owning that technology was of no concern to the DOE, and rightfully so. All that was intended was to fund the development of a new technology that might one day reduce national reliance on petroleum-based fuels.

The question Ms. Stahl should have asked is what happened to the Cleantech technology funded by the DOE? The answer to that question would certainly reflect much better on the DOE’s investment choices. In the advanced battery space, industry has made slow but steady progress on increasing the energy density of batteries capable of powering electric vehicles. Since 2009, by some estimates the cost of advanced automotive batteries on a per kilowatt basis has been reduced by half.

Advanced battery technology still has a way to go in order to displace a material quantity of petroleum used by our national vehicle fleet. The energy density of advanced batteries needs to go up and their price needs to come down. It is possible that the technology will never get there. And if it does not, then it would be fair to say, with respect to advanced batteries, that Cleantech has crashed.

But it is just possible that one day advanced batteries and electric motors will improve to the point where they become an economically attractive alternative to petroleum-fueled cars for many American consumers. That day may not be far off. When that day comes it is likely that we will look back at the early DOE investments in technology developed by long since failed Cleantech companies and understand how important those investments were.

It is worth noting that A123 Systems and EnerDel, which both went bankrupt, have since reorganized and attracted new private investment. The advanced battery technologies owned by them in which the DOE invested continue to develop and improve.

Jim Greenberger is the Executive Director of NAATBatt International, a trade association of companies, associations and research institutions working to commercialize advanced electrochemical energy storage technology for new, high-tech applications. NAATBatt International's core mission is to promote the commercial interests of its members by accelerating adoption of electrochemical energy ...

WHY should the public desire ANY technology related to electric cars? It is not posible to conceive of an electric car for which the production of the car, the energy storage mechanism, and the energy, plus the transportation of the energy as needed to reach the car, does not exceed the cost of any imaginable other option, both environmentally and economically.

SOME PEOPLE think electric cars make sense. Let them pay for this chit.

What's missing is technology assessment, where the merits could be vetted. Someplace for the truth to have a fair shot before DOE makes up its mind to spend money. The 20% cost sharing requirement of ARPA-E, which is touted as DOE's long shot effort, makes sure only big companies get to the batter's box, and ARPA-E projects have not produced any home runs, just bunts and a few singles.

Cleantech is a tainted brand which has come to mean only wind, solar, and biofuels -- non-hydro renewables -- and efficiency tweaks like metering and software. It sounds comprehensive of all pollution control technology, but in practice is only about alternative energy, which is not attractive when natural gas from fracking is abundant, and shale oil cheap.

The debate should have centered on the most important issue: why did the DOE prematurely fund capital manufacturing assets without doing reasonable due diligence as is commonly done throughout most Free Markets? Yes, investors routinely fund many new and innovative technologies that more often fail than succeed. The investors or their representatives are responsible for executing a reasonable level of due diligence to evaluate the probability of: 1) the manufacturing costs being reasonably competitive, 2) the market exists to support reasonably profitable operations and 3) all the known and probably investment risks have been critically evaluated. These steps the DOE did not do or did a relatively poor job in many cases that resulted in prematurely funding developing technologies which were not ready to compete in a Free Market. Of course, private funds were also lost, but these were decisions made by Venture Capitalists and not Government Bureaucrats with limited business development experience/knowledge that arguably resulted in $Billions of wastefully spending largely funded by growing deficits that someday will have to be settled up by future taxpayer revenues.

Do not misinterpret my belief that Government DOE should help support the development of new clean technologies, but such financial support should be dedicated and limited to R&D and not risky-premature manufacturing facilities. Just think of the huge number of potential clean energy R&D projects that were not funded due to directing the funds instead to manufacturing facilities that went bankrupted and were liquidated at pennies on the dollar.